biolumen wrote:Not sure what he means by putting "cameras in a position of jeopardy", but it sounds like something you'd want for this movie.

I would guess he means place the camera where it will get the best shot - the shot you want - don't make decisions around the potential safety of the equipment if you are ultimately going to compromise the end result.

They hit a couple of cameras in Mad Max 2, you can see one on screen when the axle on the Red XA heads straight at it after the Mack hits it. Dennis Williams mentioned wrecking another as well, but I can't recall off the top of my head where it is - most likely during the final Mack crash stunt.

As for the 3D, bah. I would assume they need it so they can market the film that way and sell more tickets. Everything big these days is "3D", and I guess the kids who spend the bulk of the $$$ expect it. But I can take or leave it, I'll usually watch in 2D if there's an option.

After seeing Avatar in 3D i'm totally convinced in "Made for 3D" movies. It was awesome. However... the whole post 3D thing has me convinced i'll see the movie in 2D first then get blown away in 3D (hopefully) after.However I am totaly convinced that George Miller (given all the "leaked" vehicle images), has all the elements I love about Mad Max and I'm totally hooked!

Of particular note is a small detail in that picture that someone on another board pointed out. The LCD camera display shows that it's set to 48 fps.

FPS.jpg (19.59 KiB) Viewed 1773 times

This would be the first clue that Miller might be shooting at 48 frames per second rather than the standard 24.

The jury is still out on whether audiences will take to it or not (reactions to the 48 fps scenes Peter Jackson showed of 'The Hobbit' were generally negative), but it's ideal for an action movie like this because it basically eliminates motion blur.

Of particular note is a small detail in that picture that someone on another board pointed out. The LCD camera display shows that it's set to 48 fps.

FPS.jpg

This would be the first clue that Miller might be shooting at 48 frames per second rather than the standard 24.

The jury is still out on whether audiences will take to it or not (reactions to the 48 fps scenes Peter Jackson showed of 'The Hobbit' were generally negative), but it's ideal for an action movie like this because it basically eliminates motion blur.

You see the very last car shell with the flags on it on the back of the War Rig before the ball in this photo?

He was inside it when the scene called for the Rig to pass under a bridge and have the flags taken out except the stunt driver drove too fast and too close to the lowest point of the bridge and ended up wiping out the car the camera man was filming in. Thank god he wasn't killed as you can see the aftermath in the photo of what was left of the shell. I guess the incident was chalked up to that the stunt driver who had rehearsed the stunt wasn't the same one on hand who drove the Rig yesterday.

biolumen wrote:The jury is still out on whether audiences will take to it or not (reactions to the 48 fps scenes Peter Jackson showed of 'The Hobbit' were generally negative), but it's ideal for an action movie like this because it basically eliminates motion blur.

I don't understand why everyone wants to get rid of motion blur. It's what gives the sense of speed. If I look out the window of a moving car, and I am close to a fence/wall/trees, they will be pass by quickly and be "blurry".

The vehicles have certainly gotten much dirtier, hard to tell they were once black. I can't help but wonder if this will cause any continuity issues.Glad to hear the camera man is ok. I hope the footage was worth it, maybe even a bonus.